View Full Version : How do we get RPForums back together? Can Bryan
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 01:37 PM
or Josh send out a mass e-mail to all members? Is that possible? Ron Paul is going to be back in the spotlight, imo, as the days and weeks go by with this economy crashing and possibly affecting the world economy.
We were a pretty powerful force when the forums were well attended and people took action. I have a feeling a lot of action is going to have to be taken, e-mails, calls, letters to the powers that be and news orgs to stop a lot of BAD legislation and actions that will be taken by Gov`t when people start losing jobs in large numbers.
Maybe an e-mail stating "remember what Ron Paul said about the economy last year in those debates? Everyone thought he was nuts. Take a look at the news about the dollar, the fed, mortgage crisis etc. Ron Paul was right! Come by Ronpaulforums and see whats going on, add your devalued $.02. The Revolution is alive and kicking!"
Something to get our numbers back up....a lot of members may have even thought he dropped out.
acptulsa
03-13-2008, 01:41 PM
Forums seems alive and well to me. They'll either come back in due time or they were never supporters--or patriots--to begin with.
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 01:46 PM
we have over 15,000 registered members.......
Forums seems alive and well to me. They'll either come back in due time or they were never supporters--or patriots--to begin with.
Join the Ron Paul movement, or you are not a patriot.
Support the war, or you support Terrorists.
Support the breach of civil liberties, or else you are a Freedom hater.
I've heard that before.
acptulsa
03-13-2008, 01:52 PM
You calling me a propagandist? Guilty! Gotta fight fire with fire!
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 01:53 PM
I think as long as people assume we are running a Presidential Election here, no one will come back.
We shouldn't set our sights on a goal that is no longer attainable, by Dr. Paul's own admission.
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 02:00 PM
I think as long as people assume we are running a Presidential Election here, no one will come back.
We shouldn't set our sights on a goal that is no longer attainable, by Dr. Paul's own admission.
VERY good point! We need a new goal!
We need a target of some sort, something to rally around and get accomplished.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 02:04 PM
let the cat herding commence... lol.
Please, whatever it is, can we make it down to earth and relatively simple to understand.
And if whatever comes forth even has a whiff of Lizardmen, I'm joining the freepers and naming names.
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 02:07 PM
let the cat herding commence... lol.
Please, whatever it is, can we make it down to earth and relatively simple to understand.
And if whatever comes forth even has a whiff of Lizardmen, I'm joining the freepers and naming names.
what? no lizardmen....what about Terbolizard? He might feel left out:D
amy31416
03-13-2008, 02:27 PM
VERY good point! We need a new goal!
We need a target of some sort, something to rally around and get accomplished.
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Hey, I try with the respectful debate, but I always reply in kind....:cool:
I agree, I just think that some of our differences are very deep.
Perhaps we should name some principles we can agree with first, and then define them better in debate?
tpreitzel
03-13-2008, 02:35 PM
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Generating support for the congressional candidates should be a primary concern for supporters of Ron Paul. If some concerted action is NOT taken to spread the word to the Meet-Up groups about these candidates and their need for funds, then our chances of returning this country to freedom is nil. Brent Sanders' last money bomb should have brought in $300k at least, but he barely received $10k. Now, if we want to succeed at restoring liberty, we have to do the dirty work of contacting Meet-Up groups, etc., to inform them about these candidates. Discussing this matter solely on RPF will NOT get the job done by any means.
I would like to point out a very interesting statistic:
With "libertarian" being understood as agreeing with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom, about 20% of the registered voters agree.
That is very significant.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf
I think some things are going to have to give on both sides... I've been more than willing to drop some of my more liberal views on the economy... I think some here have to give up some of those regressive social values.
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 02:39 PM
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Well stated Amy, agree 100% We need to come up with a few reasonable, easy to understand goals. They dont have to cost money.
This is silly but I like the idea of working toward getting a Ron Paul sign in front of every IRS office and every fed reserve office....maybe even a bumper sticker on one of D.Rockefellers cars LOL:eek:
tpreitzel
03-13-2008, 02:40 PM
I would like to point out a very interesting statistic:
With "libertarian" being understood as agreeing with conservatives on economic issues and with liberals on personal freedom, about 20% of the registered voters agree.
That is very significant.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf
I think some things are going to have to give on both sides... I've been more than willing to drop some of my more liberal views on the economy... I think some here have to give up some of those regressive social values.
I don't think so. I'm certainly will NOT give up some of those "regressive social values"... whatever that statement means. Ron won't. I won't. However, if the constitution is followed, we don't have to relinquish anything except federal power IAW a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. RPF will continue to do just fine by keeping a tight focus on constitutional principle.
I don't think so. I'm certainly will NOT give up some of those "regressive social values"... whatever that statement means. Ron won't. I won't. However, if the constitution is followed, we don't have to relinquish anything except federal power IAW a strict interpretation of the US Constitution. RPF will continue to do just fine by keeping a tight focus on constitutional principle.
Then you are never going to organize. I'm not a Ron Paul absolutist. Sorry.I have a brain of my own.
I know an old fart when I smell one. People who continue to rally behind regressive social values are never going to gain the trust of real libertarians or liberals. You can count out all the groups of hackers and computer professionals, liberals, non-religious, gays, blacks, activists, anti-war advocates, women's right advocates...etc.
All for the low cost of keeping a few intolerant idiots content to legislate from their couch.
Somehow, somewhere, an idea that conservatism and libertarianism and the principles of either are somehow intertwined. If you ignore social liberalism, you are simply just another Republican.
yongrel
03-13-2008, 02:46 PM
The forum is fine. I don't miss 3,000 members online all posting "Anderson Cooper is an ass!"
acptulsa
03-13-2008, 02:49 PM
Then you are never going to organize. I'm not a Ron Paul absolutist. Sorry.I have a brain of my own.
I know an old fart when I smell one. People who continue to rally behind regressive social values are never going to gain the trust of real libertarians or liberals. You can count out all the groups of hackers and computer professionals, liberals, non-religious, gays, blacks, activists, anti-war advocates, women's right advocates...etc.
All for the low cost of keeping a few intolerant idiots content to legislate from their couch.
Somehow, somewhere, an idea that conservatism and libertarianism and the principles of either are somehow intertwined. If you ignore social liberalism, you are simply just another Republican.
I don't think so. I think we just need to remind people, including perhaps ourselves, that liberal activities are more efficiently done on the state level, and that states' rights means if the people of a state want them they can have them.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 02:49 PM
The forum is fine. I don't miss 3,000 members online all posting "Anderson Cooper is an ass!"
He is, though...
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 02:49 PM
The forum is fine. I don't miss 3,000 members online all posting "Anderson Cooper is an ass!"
That didnt bother me a bit......only thing was some of the really deep infighting. We were like a bunch of siblings fighting over the remote.:o
acptulsa
03-13-2008, 02:51 PM
He is, though...
Sh! It goes without saying...
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 02:52 PM
That didnt bother me a bit......only thing was some of the really deep infighting. We were like a bunch of siblings fighting over the remote.:o
http://www.zuschlogin.com/content/blogimages/CatHerding5.jpg
Mr. White
03-13-2008, 02:53 PM
Then you are never going to organize. I'm not a Ron Paul absolutist. Sorry.I have a brain of my own.
I know an old fart when I smell one. People who continue to rally behind regressive social values are never going to gain the trust of real libertarians or liberals. You can count out all the groups of hackers and computer professionals, liberals, non-religious, gays, blacks, activists, anti-war advocates, women's right advocates...etc.
All for the low cost of keeping a few intolerant idiots content to legislate from their couch.
Somehow, somewhere, an idea that conservatism and libertarianism and the principles of either are somehow intertwined. If you ignore social liberalism, you are simply just another Republican.
Thank you,, agreed.
Join the Ron Paul movement, or you are not a patriot.
Support the war, or you support Terrorists.
Support the breach of civil liberties, or else you are a Freedom hater.
I've heard that before.
Maybe the best way to say this is that they were never really too serious.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 02:56 PM
Maybe the best way to say this is that they were never really too serious.
We can support an idea without creating an us v. them mentality I believe. Civility is what allows liberty minded individuals to work together. As several others have said, we need to find a half a dozen, to a dozen simple and clear ideas and support them.
Let me toss one out...
Balanced Budget Amendment, with the exception of times of Congressionally Declared War
Anyone have a problem with that?
Truth Warrior
03-13-2008, 02:56 PM
How about the repeal of the two major implemented, by government, planks of the Communist Manifesto, namely central bank and income tax, as big enough focal points?
I don't think so. I think we just need to remind people, including perhaps ourselves, that liberal activities are more efficiently done on the state level, and that states' rights means if the people of a state want them they can have them.
Well, that is a good principle my friend. I agree.
I don't think that states should be overly aggressive in restriction of rights... that the federal government has some obligation to protect people under the American banner from rampant abuse.
However, I do think the Federal Government has no right whatsoever to dissect certain rights...
People here advocate for a strong national religion, for a ban of gay marriage and other weirdness on the federal level.
acptulsa
03-13-2008, 02:57 PM
I've been part of some really productive conversations here lately, including this one. I think smaller might even be better, at least for now. It gives us a chance to coalesce and gell into a sort of a core for the site. Sort of a reset.
And this could serve us well--as long as we can figure out who gets the damned remote. After all, arguing among ourselves is a great way (at least for me, hope it works for you) to find those arguments that make headway in the wider world.
flames2dust77
03-13-2008, 02:59 PM
The forum is fine. I don't miss 3,000 members online all posting "Anderson Cooper is an ass!"
lol! QFT.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 03:00 PM
I've been part of some really productive conversations here lately, including this one. I think smaller might even be better, at least for now. It gives us a chance to coalesce and gell into a sort of a core for the site. Sort of a reset.
And this could serve us well--as long as we can figure out who gets the damned remote. After all, arguing among ourselves is a great way (at least for me, hope it works for you) to find those arguments that make headway in the wider world.
There is no remote. The tide will go where it wants to go, this is how we got a blimp instead of say, a phone banking operation. No offense to the blimp people.
What a small group can do is create a simple idea and nudge the masses towards a common goal.
amy31416
03-13-2008, 03:01 PM
Hey, I try with the respectful debate, but I always reply in kind....:cool:
I agree, I just think that some of our differences are very deep.
Perhaps we should name some principles we can agree with first, and then define them better in debate?
I generally think I'm the same, but there have been a few things that have prompted me to call someone a hooker or various other things from time to time. Partially because I think it's funny too.
Okay, some principles, good place to start.
My principles, as related to politics:
1. I believe that large government is corrupt and does not have the interests of the people in mind and makes their lives worse.
2. Our government is completely out of control and is actually robbing us, we allow this to happen through ignorance and apathy.
3. We are responsible for our government. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of what is going on is no excuse.
4. I believe that welfare does almost nothing to help people, but actually hurts people by giving them no incentive to improve their lives. The only conspiracy theory I believe is that welfare programs are designed to keep the population ignorant and subservient.
5. Education is the most important goal. But not just any "education," an education based on truth, debate and inquisitiveness, very much unlike the public school education offered.
So, those are a few, but I think some of the most important. How about the rest of you?
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 03:02 PM
How about the repeal of the two major implemented, by government, planks of the Communist Manifesto, namely central bank and income tax, as big enough focal points?
I like the idea, but it sounds too extreme packaged that way. How about this.
"Reduce federal spending with the goal of eliminnating the need for a personal income tax"
and.
"Place the power to control interest rates with investors and lenders" or something like that.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 03:03 PM
"The government that governs least, governs best."
Maybe we could get a collection of quotes from respectable political sources as our basis for these principles. It would go a long way to our credibility.
There is no remote. The tide will go where it wants to go, this is how we got a blimp instead of say, a phone banking operation. No offense to the blimp people.
What a small group can do is create a simple idea and nudge the masses towards a common goal.
If we coalesce behind just one person, we fail when that person does...
If we coalesce behind principles, we can only grow stronger, and between us, our principles can be stamped out, and made stronger.
If we could come up with these principles, we could come up with a small but attainable goal..
A phone banking company is one of those good ideas... a mailing list, phone list, email list.
A newsletter.
There are ways.
crazyfingers
03-13-2008, 03:05 PM
I don't think so. I think we just need to remind people, including perhaps ourselves, that liberal activities are more efficiently done on the state level, and that states' rights means if the people of a state want them they can have them.
Exactly. The last thing this movement needs is a renewed focus on the wedge issues. Ron has been successful at bringing together varying groups because of the simplicity of his message. Limited government, local control. Anyone can support that goal regardless of what they think of abortion/gay marriage/whatever. Frankly the infighting among libertarians is absurd. Factions like CATO and Reason can keep asking me for support, but until they get with the program - that it's about the Constitution, not pet issues - those requests will fall on deaf ears.
I generally think I'm the same, but there have been a few things that have prompted me to call someone a hooker or various other things from time to time. Partially because I think it's funny too.
Okay, some principles, good place to start.
My principles, as related to politics:
1. I believe that large government is corrupt and does not have the interests of the people in mind and makes their lives worse.
2. Our government is completely out of control and is actually robbing us, we allow this to happen through ignorance and apathy.
3. We are responsible for our government. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of what is going on is no excuse.
4. I believe that welfare does almost nothing to help people, but actually hurts people by giving them no incentive to improve their lives. The only conspiracy theory I believe is that welfare programs are designed to keep the population ignorant and subservient.
5. Education is the most important goal. But not just any "education," an education based on truth, debate and inquisitiveness, very much unlike the public school education offered.
So, those are a few, but I think some of the most important. How about the rest of you?
I actually don't disagree with any of those...
I would be interested in what you would do to fix the department of education though...
Kludge
03-13-2008, 03:06 PM
Libertyforest.com
;)
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 03:06 PM
If we coalesce behind just one person, we fail when that person does...
If we coalesce behind principles, we can only grow stronger, and between us, our principles can be stamped out, and made stronger.
Agreed. I am heading home and i wanna see this filled with some principles when i get there.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 03:07 PM
Libertyforest.com
;)
If we use it to fight, we might as well go to hannity. If we unify around certain points and start communicating this to the masses, we might have to move the server to sealand =)
amy31416
03-13-2008, 03:09 PM
Generating support for the congressional candidates should be a primary concern for supporters of Ron Paul. If some concerted action is NOT taken to spread the word to the Meet-Up groups about these candidates and their need for funds, then our chances of returning this country to freedom is nil. Brent Sanders' last money bomb should have brought in $300k at least, but he barely received $10k. Now, if we want to succeed at restoring liberty, we have to do the dirty work of contacting Meet-Up groups, etc., to inform them about these candidates. Discussing this matter solely on RPF will NOT get the job done by any means.
I agree. If we can get people elected in the "lower" offices, then we start building a foundation to eventually get someone in the White House and have the numbers to ensure that they don't pass unconstitutional laws.
You're right, discussing the matter only on RPF will not get it done. The Meetups are one good source, but I think we need to branch out to the NRA, GOA, various conservative groups, anti-war groups, etc.
Truth Warrior
03-13-2008, 03:11 PM
I like the idea, but it sounds too extreme packaged that way. How about this.
"Reduce federal spending with the goal of eliminnating the need for a personal income tax"
and.
"Place the power to control interest rates with investors and lenders" or something like that.
Marketing is not my forte. :) Whatever it takes to get the job done.
On second thought, it sounds too much like just more of the same old tired typical political "doublespeak" and doubletalk to me. ( nothing personal :) ;) )
Thanks!
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 03:13 PM
If we coalesce behind just one person, we fail when that person does...
If we coalesce behind principles, we can only grow stronger, and between us, our principles can be stamped out, and made stronger.
If we could come up with these principles, we could come up with a small but attainable goal..
A phone banking company is one of those good ideas... a mailing list, phone list, email list.
A newsletter.
There are ways.
I think RPF might be better off if we stay away from "NEWSLETTERS" if you get my meaning:D:eek:
The forum is fine. I don't miss 3,000 members online all posting "Anderson Cooper is an ass!"
QFT. A little too much noise until the forums got broken into subforums. The board became unreadable for awhile.
That didnt bother me a bit......only thing was some of the really deep infighting. We were like a bunch of siblings fighting over the remote.:o
Of course it didn't. You are a master of posting offtopic in the wrong forum.
amy31416
03-13-2008, 03:23 PM
I actually don't disagree with any of those...
I would be interested in what you would do to fix the department of education though...
We really do have a lot in common, if we choose to see beyond our differences.
Well, as far as it goes with the Dept of Ed, I think it needs to be stripped back immensely on the Federal level. I taught Chemistry and Physics on the college level and it was stunning how little the students knew, and how little they wanted to know.
So, what I think needs to happen is to set up a state system that motivates the parents to take responsibility. Have you heard of success stories of kids in the ghetto where they almost always point to a mother or father who instilled values in them of the importance of education, even if they weren't educated themselves? It's not 100% of the answer, but it's very important. And just like this campaign is ground-up, I think that's important because it gives people ownership and pride in good results. Just like a business that gives the employees profit-sharing.
As it is now, people just point and blame the "idiots" without ever trying to do something to improve it. Not everyone should be a teacher, for certain, but there is a lot we can do. I used to volunteer at our local library, teaching people how to use the internet. I always thought it would be interesting to teach adult literacy as well, but I'm not too qualified. . .I should go ahead and figure it out and take the reigns and just do it.
Dave Wood
03-13-2008, 03:24 PM
QFT. A little too much noise until the forums got broken into subforums. The board became unreadable for awhile.
Of course it didn't. You are a master of posting offtopic in the wrong forum.
and with all due respect, you have always appeared to be a control freak in a good kind of way.
Truth Warrior
03-13-2008, 03:25 PM
I think that we need a spokesperson as cool and smooth as the late Harry Browne.
"Why Government Doesn't Work".
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119977.pdf
amy31416
03-13-2008, 03:31 PM
Well stated Amy, agree 100% We need to come up with a few reasonable, easy to understand goals. They dont have to cost money.
This is silly but I like the idea of working toward getting a Ron Paul sign in front of every IRS office and every fed reserve office....maybe even a bumper sticker on one of D.Rockefellers cars LOL:eek:
Ha! I have four Ron Paul signs that have the IRS' name on it. ;) We definitely need to spread the message that the IRS and the Fed need to work for us and not the other way around. We need to fire the IRS, and in order to do that, we need to band together.
I have already taken some steps.
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 06:06 PM
I mean, nobody likes the IRS. If we are a government of the people and for the people, why do we still have it?
Thats a simple question that might spark some ideas in peoples' minds.
Its almost like in the matrix (i know , i know, movie references are lowbrow). Morpheus gives him a pill that makes the world around him dissolve into reality, and that things he believed to be real, were not so.
Few choose to leave the matrix, but we can do things to sabotage the system.
One little thing i do to jar people is to ask if they accept federal reserve notes, or if they still take US Dollars.
LibertyEagle
03-13-2008, 06:50 PM
VERY good point! We need a new goal!
We need a target of some sort, something to rally around and get accomplished.
It was always about taking our country back and reinstating the Constitution as the law of the land. Or, that's what I thought anyway. Ron Paul was only one of the many tools we need to get there.
I personally see no conflict of interest in moving forward with getting as many delegates as we can for the convention, while at the same time getting involved in the local level on up and taking over the GOP, or whatever you personally deem best to do.
This is no time to stop. The consequences are not good at all.
qh4dotcom
03-13-2008, 07:25 PM
or Josh send out a mass e-mail to all members?
I don't ever recall getting one e-mail from ronpaulforums.com...other than the e-mail asking me to verify my e-mail address when I signed up.
When I joined I thought I would get an "instant e-mail notification" for every thread I am subscribed to anytime there is a new post...since that option is available.
amy31416
03-13-2008, 07:57 PM
It was always about taking our country back and reinstating the Constitution as the law of the land. Or, that's what I thought anyway. Ron Paul was only one of the many tools we need to get there.
I personally see no conflict of interest in moving forward with getting as many delegates as we can for the convention, while at the same time getting involved in the local level on up and taking over the GOP, or whatever you personally deem best to do.
This is no time to stop. The consequences are not good at all.
I agree and I think what we're looking for is some semblance of leadership, or direction if you will. Not necessarily a hierarchy of sorts, but perhaps our own "think tank" needs to come out of grassroots. People who are trustworthy, knowledgeable and innovative, maybe even a little part cheerleader.
If we rally around particular causes or events and become united, yet still retain our ability to openly question and debate things (we need to get a bit better about being civil in debate, we have such a broad spectrum of people.)
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of "projects" rather than only money bombs, something to educate the public on the Constitution or a specific part of it to help sway voters to vote for people like Sabrin, Sanders, Forsythe, et al. Don't get me wrong, the fund raising is important, but it's also very important to begin the arduous task of increasing awareness among the masses. We've been bamboozled by our government and led like cows to slaughter with these wars.
It's too important of a cause to allow division and chaos.
derdy
03-13-2008, 08:26 PM
I haven't been on as much due to increased workload at work (as opposed to not working and surfing the net :D) and I'm also organzing delegates for my county (need 137) in my upcoming caucus in less than 48 hours!! :eek:
joemiller
03-13-2008, 08:59 PM
VERY good point! We need a new goal!
We need a target of some sort, something to rally around and get accomplished.
I think taking over the GOP is a worth while political goal to undertake at the present time; don't you?
At present, the political support Dr. Paul has worked so hard to muster is in danger to drifting away simply due to a lack of leadership on this point. As I have stated, it really doesn't matter what we do as long as we all do it together. If we fail to act as a single body, our political power will dissipate irrespective of the paths we take.
Dr. Paul has already set a new political goal for all of us to act upon. It is simple, direct and very, very powerful. Dr. Paul wants all of his supporters to place their names on the November ballot as precinct committee men and women of their local county Republican Parties. Do this and the R3volution will continue no matter what other paths you may take.
joe
micahnelson
03-13-2008, 10:58 PM
I'm not sure how far we are going to get with the GOP beyond local levels, but admittedly i don't know much about it. I feel like maybe we should, as a separate effort, have something nonpartisan. some people just won't ever trust republicans again, even though democrats are no saints either.
Maybe im idealistic to think a nonpartisan, or above partisan political move can make an impact. i think people do feel very dissolutioned with the whole system right now.
fatdumb
03-13-2008, 11:20 PM
I took this from freedom force international
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=creed
THE CREED OF FREEDOM
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just government derives its power solely from the governed. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of just government is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
I believe that the proper role of government is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If government is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That government is best which governs least.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE THREE COMMANDMENTS OF FREEDOM
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Do not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Do not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE THREE PILLARS OF FREEDOM
Another way of viewing these principles is to consider them as the three pillars of freedom. They are concepts that underlie the ideology of individualism, and individualism is the indispensable foundation of freedom.
alaric
03-14-2008, 12:42 AM
I think as long as people assume we are running a Presidential Election here, no one will come back.
We shouldn't set our sights on a goal that is no longer attainable, by Dr. Paul's own admission.
he did NOT say that. he said 'victory is not attainable by conventional means'. that means victory may be attainable thru UNconventional means. that is not giving up!
HollyforRP
03-14-2008, 03:11 AM
Hire a belly dancer.
BigRedBrent
03-14-2008, 04:46 AM
I'm not sure how far we are going to get with the GOP beyond local levels
We need to take over the GOP at the local level if we ever want a voice at the national level. No party is as powerful and as vulnerable to this as the GOP is right now. And many will tell you that all politics is local. Not completely true but it may be the quickest way we have at a national presence. With little to no actual support for McCain (Not that I have been able to see anyway, I mean who the heck would dedicate time for this man?), we have a very distinct opportunity at this moment to get a lot more support for our movement.
You calling me a propagandist? Guilty! Gotta fight fire with fire!
I think I would prefer to fight fire with some suffocating flame retardant foam. But that is just me. I mean I also thought that ignorance could be cured with education. But what do I know?
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 06:25 AM
Hire a belly dancer.
Without question.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 06:26 AM
I think I would prefer to fight fire with some suffocating flame retardant foam. But that is just me. I mean I also thought that ignorance could be cured with education. But what do I know?
Well, I do generally fight real fire with water, I admit. However, sometimes a controlled burn is just the thing. Without fuel... Of course, if you don't make sure your controlled burn is controlled, you've shot yourself in the foot, too.
Analogies aside, taking over the G.O.P. from the grassroots up is indeed important, but I think education is just as important. One supports the other--if we aren't better at winning hearts and minds than the neocons, why would the party apparatus reject them for us? I mean, they might agree with us, but they want success, too.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 06:26 AM
he did NOT say that. he said 'victory is not attainable by conventional means'. that means victory may be attainable thru UNconventional means. that is not giving up!
Fine, most of us aren't interested in this path. This is why there is a decline in membership and interaction.
I don't discourage any behavior that clogs the machine. Any politcal chaos that we could sow would be worth it. i just don't know if it would advance the cause of liberty or give it another shade of "kook"
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 06:29 AM
We need to take over the GOP at the local level if we ever want a voice at the national level. No party is as powerful and as vulnerable to this as the GOP is right now.
I think I would prefer to fight fire with some suffocating flame retardant foam. But that is just me. I mean I also thought that ignorance could be cured with education. But what do I know?
Agreed about the vulnerability of the GOP. I just think the GOP brand name will limit our ability to grab anti-war liberals. They will never sign on with republicans, along with many mainstream Americans. the GOP is tainted goods.
Do we want our movement associated with the GOP? just a question and it isn't rhetorical.
kaleidoscope eyes
03-14-2008, 06:36 AM
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Yep, all this and the fact dissapointment seemed to get the better of a lot of us. Even I've felt the dissapointment, but only for a few moments before remembering the overarching reason we all came here in the first place. But, Amy, and others are correct when we say we need a rallying point and get our commaraderie back up! What about the March? That seems like the most likely subject, but even with this, I've been feeling the vibe is a bit ambivilent?
I'm not too worried tho, as long as we have a strong core, the gravity of this movement will continue to collect excitement and numbers. Have Faith!:)
constituent
03-14-2008, 06:46 AM
But, Amy, and others are correct when we say we need a rallying point and get our commaraderie back up! What about the March? That seems like the most likely subject, but even with this, I've been feeling the vibe is a bit ambivilent?
i think the hq's, and rp's hem-hawing about the march (and some of the negative feedback that resulted from the mere suggestion) really hurt the chances of a BIG (enough) rally, add in the transportation costs for about 85% of the country that lives nowhere near d.c. and the rally faces nearly insurmountable odds... it's looking more like there will be a RP contingent at several rallies throughout the year (maybe).
personally, i think organizing RP contingents for every political gathering and gathering of major social import in every state from here on out is what the movement needs most.
perhaps a group that keeps an eye out for events across the country, and spreads the word and helps to organize transportation, flyers, etc. to broaden the crowd we're interacting with. stay active in swaying those of other political persuasions than ourselves that true liberty for all people is the only way forward, and why the RP solution is the best out there.
added benefit of capitalizing on his newfound notoriety amongst "average joe," and the sudden regret on the part of those who heard but looked the other way only to see that he was the only honest one out there.
also, dr. paul touring like the dead would be of much benefit.
obama has opening acts at his speaking appearances.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 07:03 AM
Fine, most of us aren't interested in this path. This is why there is a decline in membership and interaction.
I don't discourage any behavior that clogs the machine. Any politcal chaos that we could sow would be worth it. i just don't know if it would advance the cause of liberty or give it another shade of "kook"
Well, now, I think you finally put your finger on it. It is not only a useful diversion, it is a source of publicity. If we are careful to avoid appearing to be kooks, which is very important, we can rouse curiosity. Why are they so committed? That, in turn, can lead to minds being opened and answers being sought. Remember that large numbers of the public pay little if any attention to any race but the presidential race. The convention shenanigans can be like the guy at the curb with the sandwich board on getting people to look at what else--arguably more effective--we're up to and joining in.
Yes, we must be careful not to be kooky. Yes, we must be prepared to get over a lack of success. Given those--no harm, right? And if the convention makes a good rallying point, that's a good thing too.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 07:14 AM
Yes, we must be careful not to be kooky. Yes, we must be prepared to get over a lack of success. Given those--no harm, right? And if the convention makes a good rallying point, that's a good thing too.
I agree. If the point of rallying and working to affect the convention is to promote the cause of liberty, I completely support it. Many of us still bear the GOP label thanks to the primary process, so we have every right to be heard. And, as Dr. Paul says, we aren't trying to change the party- but bring it back to its roots. With the impact Ron Paul had on this campaign, I think he deserves to speak.
Go with that message, and we can avoid kookiness.
No lizardmen, no foul.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 07:15 AM
Is getting rid of the Fed kooky?
Is getting rid of the income tax kooky?
If so, then call me kooky! :)
kaleidoscope eyes
03-14-2008, 07:17 AM
Is getting rid of the Fed kooky?
Is getting rid of the income tax kooky?
If so, then call me kooky! :)
Ditto that sentiment!:p
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 07:19 AM
Is getting rid of the Fed kooky?
Is getting rid of the income tax kooky?
If so, then call me kooky! :)
Yes, that is how we're waking true conservatives up! That is the attitude that is working for us!
Trolls came in here determined to stir up infighting, and the question of the realism of fighting for the nomination is the best tool they could find. If we can at least agree to disagree on this, and promise to do no harm, I think we're united.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 07:19 AM
Ditto that sentiment!:p
Thanks!
I was getting a little concerned there. :D
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 07:29 AM
Is getting rid of the Fed kooky?
Is getting rid of the income tax kooky?
If so, then call me kooky! :)
It isn't kooky, it is American.
What we need to decide is this.
Do we want to package this in a way the non political 85% of Americans can understand and accept, or do we want to try and educate 85% of Americans to the point that they understand it on the level some of us do?
We need to be realistic about how people think instead of just getting mad at the "sheep". Thats my take on it at least.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 07:31 AM
It isn't kooky, it is American.
What we need to decide is this.
Do we want to package this in a way the non political 85% of Americans can understand and accept, or do we want to try and educate 85% of Americans to the point that they understand it on the level some of us do?
We need to be realistic about how people think instead of just getting mad at the "sheep". Thats my take on it at least.
If we can package it, we're brilliant. If we can't, we'll have to do it the hard way. And as for being realistic about the average thought process, all I can say is QFT! We need to get their hearts and minds, even "such as they are".
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 07:45 AM
If we can package it, we're brilliant. If we can't, we'll have to do it the hard way. And as for being realistic about the average thought process, all I can say is QFT! We need to get their hearts and minds, even "such as they are".
I think 1984 described the situation very well.
1-3% of people rule. This is the first tier.
14-12% of people are political. This is the second tier.
85% of people don't care. This is the third tier.
Revolutions occur when the second leverages the third against the first.
Today, the Red v. Blue mentality has changed some things. We fight laterally instead of vertically. The blues want to end the war, the Reds want to end abortion. The Blues want expansion of welfare, the Reds want limited government.
None of them get what they want. When they don't, they don't blame the first tier, they blame their counterparts on the other side. What this does is effectively neutralizes the ability to change government, as we are so absorbed with fighting each other in the second tier.
What is the proof of this? Is anyone happy with the candidates? Will the left get an antiwar president? Will the Right get a fiscal conservative? Through all this, the same ruling class gets elected year after year. There is no change because the "changers" are occupied.
Saying all that to say this. We need to unify a significant percentage of the second tier, and then start convincing the third.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 07:55 AM
It isn't kooky, it is American.
What we need to decide is this.
Do we want to package this in a way the non political 85% of Americans can understand and accept, or do we want to try and educate 85% of Americans to the point that they understand it on the level some of us do?
We need to be realistic about how people think instead of just getting mad at the "sheep". Thats my take on it at least.
I always thought that Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" was pretty educational and compelling. How many "folks" saw it? Obviously not enough. :(
First, we have to "deprogram" the people, before we can ever have any hope to "reprogram" them.<IMHO>
Thanks!
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 07:55 AM
None of them get what they want. When they don't, they don't blame the first tier, they blame their counterparts on the other side. What this does is effectively neutralizes the ability to change government, as we are so absorbed with fighting each other in the second tier.
You, sir, are brilliant.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 08:02 AM
I always thought that Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" was pretty educational and compelling. How many "folks" saw it? Obviously not enough. :(
First, we have to "deprogram" the people, before we can ever have any hope to "reprogram" them.<IMHO>
Thanks!
Everyone has that waking up moment, and we'll be there for them when it happens. Freedom to Fascism is a great movie. I forget some of the last parts of it- but as I remember it got a little too extreme for a viewer who is looking for a reason to reject it.
One of the things that really hit home, however, was the phone call to the pizza place. I remember seeing that fwd: around the internet.
Things like that funny clip do more for our cause than we can understand. It makes people pause and consider what could happen if we lose our privacy.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 08:03 AM
How many people in the USSR were active Communist Party members?
3%
How many people in Nazi Germany were active Nazi party members?
3%
How many people in the USA ( above the level of the average voter ) are active members in party politics?
3%
I think I'm starting to see a pattern here, and it's not good news.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 08:05 AM
How many people in the USSR were active Communist Party members?
3%
How many people in Nazi Germany were active Nazi party members?
3%
How many people in the USA ( above the level of the average voter ) are active members in party politics?
3%
I think I'm starting to see a pattern here, and it's not good news.
Im not seeing the pattern...
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 08:06 AM
Everyone has that waking up moment, and we'll be there for them when it happens. Freedom to Fascism is a great movie. I forget some of the last parts of it- but as I remember it got a little too extreme for a viewer who is looking for a reason to reject it.
One of the things that really hit home, however, was the phone call to the pizza place. I remember seeing that fwd: around the internet.
Things like that funny clip do more for our cause than we can understand. It makes people pause and consider what could happen if we lose our privacy.
When in the history of humanity has the mass of the people ever awakened?
Never, as far as I can tell. :(
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 08:10 AM
When in the history of humanity has the mass of the people ever awakened?
Never as far as I can tell. :(
I meant everyone exclusively to people who do wake up. We will never get everyone, and we don't need to. We just need to get the people interested in politics to see that they are part of a self sustaining system that is not giving them what they want.
Education will expand the people who become involved, but that is a long term goal.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 08:12 AM
When in the history of humanity has the mass of the people ever awakened?
Never, as far as I can tell. :(
Nixon sure got many a Republican's eyes open, though it wasn't easy. Humor helped, too--"Would you buy a used car from this man?" Then Reagan also used humor, and used it to sell many a libertarian principle. That's why I was trying to use Reagan to sell Dr. Paul. The only problem is that Reagan didn't have what it took to carry those through.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 08:19 AM
Nixon sure got many a Republican's eyes open, though it wasn't easy. Humor helped, too--"Would you buy a used car from this man?" Then Reagan also used humor, and used it to sell many a libertarian principle. That's why I was trying to use Reagan to sell Dr. Paul. The only problem is that Reagan didn't have what it took to carry those through.
Sorry, I'm strongly in the late Harry Browne camp of "Why Government Doesn't Work".
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119977.pdf
Thanks! :)
amy31416
03-14-2008, 08:19 AM
It isn't kooky, it is American.
What we need to decide is this.
Do we want to package this in a way the non political 85% of Americans can understand and accept, or do we want to try and educate 85% of Americans to the point that they understand it on the level some of us do?
We need to be realistic about how people think instead of just getting mad at the "sheep". Thats my take on it at least.
Good question to ask. I guess if we "package" it a little differently, making it more palatable to the 85%, we also start the process on educating people. I think we have to start small, with specific concepts that the majority is uninformed on.
I do know that whatever we do, we can't attach Ron Paul's name to it, I think too many people have made up their mind about him one way or the other.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 08:23 AM
Nixon sure got many a Republican's eyes open, though it wasn't easy. Humor helped, too--"Would you buy a used car from this man?" Then Reagan also used humor, and used it to sell many a libertarian principle. That's why I was trying to use Reagan to sell Dr. Paul. The only problem is that Reagan didn't have what it took to carry those through.
I was just thinking about Reagan. I think the reason Reagan didn't have what it takes to carry those through is because of two reasons 1. he didn't have as solid principles as Ron Paul and 2. he wasn't surrounded by enough other people who believed the way he did.
For me, it cements the urgency of supporting libertarian minded candidates for all the "lesser" offices and getting them in, while also trying to educate people.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 08:25 AM
When in the history of humanity has the mass of the people ever awakened?
Never, as far as I can tell. :(
American Revolution?
Dave Wood
03-14-2008, 08:29 AM
American Revolution?
The French seem to have a way of "awakening" every now and again, and dont forget about the Irish.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 08:34 AM
American Revolution?
Not really, if you go back and check the history.
Thanks! :)
amy31416
03-14-2008, 08:39 AM
Not really, if you go back and check the history.
Thanks! :)
I know it wasn't specifically "awakening the masses" but we managed to pull it off.
Welcome!
Oh! And Athens was pretty good back in the day as well.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 08:42 AM
And Athens was pretty good back in the day as well.
Talk about a herd of cats.
Just came back from the thread in Hot Topics Uncle Em started. I hope we'll all take the time to read it. Very deep and very fundamental. He's really getting to the heart of what we're doing here. And if we don't know, we can't educate...
I'll edit with a link.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127829
As promised!
amy31416
03-14-2008, 08:44 AM
The French seem to have a way of "awakening" every now and again, and dont forget about the Irish.
True.
And all I'll say is that just because there isn't a perfect precedent for what we're trying to do via the Revolution, doesn't mean we should give up.
In fact, that's all the more reason to try. How many of us in our lifetimes will have the opportunity to navigate uncharted territory? To try a grand experiment? To see if we can stop, and reverse a negative direction that an empire/country has taken?
C'mon! This is an amazing opportunity, let's not waste it, because it won't happen again.
Dave Wood
03-14-2008, 08:45 AM
True.
And all I'll say is that just because there isn't a perfect precedent for what we're trying to do via the Revolution, doesn't mean we should give up.
In fact, that's all the more reason to try. How many of us in our lifetimes will have the opportunity to navigate uncharted territory? To try a grand experiment? To see if we can stop, and reverse a negative direction that an empire/country has taken?
C'mon! This is an amazing opportunity, let's not waste it, because it won't happen again.
QFT
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 09:01 AM
Unfortunately, the odds that the results of a revolution will produce something better than the previous tyranny are strongly against the overwhelming lessons of history. The American revolution was a contra-history anomaly and exception.<IMHO> Just look at what we have now become. Are we really any better off now, government-wise, than they were under King George III?
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 09:06 AM
Unfortunately, the odds that the results of a revolution will produce something better than the previous tyranny are strongly against the overwhelming lessons of history. The American revolution was a contra-history anomaly and exception.<IMHO> Just look at what we have now become. Are we really any better off now, government-wise, than they were under King George III?
They bought us almost two hundred years. I'm content to give my life if we can but buy people two hundred more.
snpage
03-14-2008, 09:07 AM
We shouldn't set our sights on a goal that is no longer attainable, by Dr. Paul's own admission.
When did he say this? If I remember correctly, he stated that victory is not attainable in the conventional sense. when he said that I was under the impression that he meant with the popular vote.
This is not over, for me...in terms of Dr. Paul running for president until the second wend. in November. :)
Highstreet
03-14-2008, 09:10 AM
Perhaps we should name some principles we can agree with first, and then define them better in debate?
I would nominate the Ron Paul platform as that list of Principles...
any takers?
pcosmar
03-14-2008, 09:12 AM
When did he say this? If I remember correctly, he stated that victory is not attainable in the conventional sense. when he said that I was under the impression that he meant with the popular vote.
This is not over, for me...in terms of Dr. Paul running for president until the second wend. in November. :)
Go for the unconventional.
An unconventional Convention. An unconventional Win.
I'm still here, not going anywhere.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 09:18 AM
They bought us almost two hundred years. I'm content to give my life if we can but buy people two hundred more.
I truly sympathize with your intention. I hope that you realize that the odds are greatly stacked against your success. It may end up costing, your life, my life, and perhaps millions more lives. And still not change a thing for the better.
Good luck! :)
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 09:24 AM
I truly sympathize with your intention. I hope that you realize that the odds are greatly stacked against your success. It may end up costing, your life, my life, and perhaps millions more lives. And still not change a thing for the better.
We truly need to fight smarter than that. And that is the one reason I would be led to believe we need to avoid an anarcistic approach and get some wise leaders in place.
LibertyEagle
03-14-2008, 09:24 AM
I truly sympathize with your intention. I hope that you realize that the odds are greatly stacked against your success. It may end up costing, your life, my life, and perhaps millions more lives. And still not change a thing for the better.
Good luck! :)
Here's the thing. If we do not try to do what we can, with our brains engaged, we're surely done.
Personally, I don't plan on groveling or kissing anyone's feet anytime soon. I doubt you do either.
LibertyEagle
03-14-2008, 09:25 AM
We truly need to fight smarter than that. And that is the one reason I would be led to believe we need to avoid an anarcistic approach and get some wise leaders in place.
QFT
I would nominate the Ron Paul platform as that list of Principles...
any takers?
I wouldn't.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 09:28 AM
I would nominate the Ron Paul platform as that list of Principles...
any takers?
I dont think we should just make a blanket acceptance of anything. Taking one point at a time might be the way to go, debate it, come to a conclusion, and move on.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 09:30 AM
Here's the thing. If we do not try to do what we can, with our brains engaged, we're surely done.
TRUE!
Personally, I don't plan on groveling or kissing anyone's feet anytime soon. I doubt you do either.
TRUE!
Thanks!
How about some principles that affect us genuinely... things we REALLY do care about... things that are imminently adverse because of current policy, be it Dem or Repub.
I think mine is obvious, but if it were brought up, I could make a rational defense of the reason for my stance.
Also, I think most of us agree that the executive branch of the Government has gotten too powerful. That's a start, and it transcends to our equal hatred of the current war in Iraq.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 09:39 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=127829
As promised!
I read through the thread. Thanks.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 09:39 AM
Freedom, peace and prosperity as principles, sure works for me.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 09:40 AM
I read through the thread. Thanks.
Definitely takes a while, but I think it's well worth it. That man runs deep!
Dave Wood
03-14-2008, 09:41 AM
I wonder if maybe we should put together an all out effort to show the average joe how much war profiteering is going on and who the people are who are benefiting from this. It doesnt seem like it would be too hard to convince people of why the military complex has to be reigned in if we show how the troops are the ones who are losing in all of this.
If we were able to do this we might just be able to make the average joe begin to connect the dots to the fed, income tax etc. Just a thought.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 09:44 AM
I wonder if maybe we should put together an all out effort to show the average joe how much war profiteering is going on and who the people are who are benefiting from this. It doesnt seem like it would be too hard to convince people of why the military complex has to be reigned in if we show how the troops are the ones who are losing in all of this.
If we were able to do this we might just be able to make the average joe begin to connect the dots to the fed, income tax etc. Just a thought.
Should be an element of it, but we need to be careful not to sound anti-military.
I understand that we are NOT anti-military when we attack the profiteers, but many people are starting to regard KBR and blackwater like our soldiers.
When we explain that we can't afford the war, we become vulnerable to the "We can't afford not to" meme response.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 09:46 AM
I wonder if maybe we should put together an all out effort to show the average joe how much war profiteering is going on and who the people are who are benefiting from this. It doesnt seem like it would be too hard to convince people of why the military complex has to be reigned in if we show how the troops are the ones who are losing in all of this.
If we were able to do this we might just be able to make the average joe begin to connect the dots to the fed, income tax etc. Just a thought.
WAR IS A RACKET
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Dave Wood
03-14-2008, 09:46 AM
Should be an element of it, but we need to be careful not to sound anti-military.
I understand that we are NOT anti-military when we attack the profiteers, but many people are starting to regard KBR and blackwater like our soldiers.
When we explain that we can't afford the war, we become vulnerable to the "We can't afford not to" meme response.
understood. We also should be worrying about people group private mercenaries together with the military.....very dangerous stuff imho
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 09:54 AM
understood. We also should be worrying about people group private mercenaries together with the military.....very dangerous stuff imho
Agreed. That should be an element of what we discuss.
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 10:09 AM
I think, at a basic principles level, we could agree that if someone or something besides the federal government can do it, it should.
Or, to put it another way, if it doesn't establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domistic tranquility, or secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity it is somebody else's job--not the federal government's
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 10:21 AM
As for promoting the general welfare, we need to get the word general back into that--not the specific welfare, the general welfare.
alaric
03-14-2008, 11:17 AM
Fine, most of us aren't interested in this path. This is why there is a decline in membership and interaction.
I don't discourage any behavior that clogs the machine. Any politcal chaos that we could sow would be worth it. i just don't know if it would advance the cause of liberty or give it another shade of "kook"
that path is becoming a delegate. all of us should be interested in that!
alaric
03-14-2008, 11:21 AM
I truly sympathize with your intention. I hope that you realize that the odds are greatly stacked against your success. It may end up costing, your life, my life, and perhaps millions more lives. And still not change a thing for the better.
Good luck! :)
however, I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees!
alaric
03-14-2008, 11:23 AM
Unfortunately, the odds that the results of a revolution will produce something better than the previous tyranny are strongly against the overwhelming lessons of history. The American revolution was a contra-history anomaly and exception.<IMHO> Just look at what we have now become. Are we really any better off now, government-wise, than they were under King George III?
Actually, to be precise, this isn't really a revolution. It's a RESTORATION of an already existing constitution!
amy31416
03-14-2008, 11:54 AM
Actually, to be precise, this isn't really a revolution. It's a RESTORATION of an already existing constitution!
That is true, maybe we'll find that we need to gear up for this every 200 years due to how things work in human populations.
So, while I've never made a video or done any of the creative things that many others have done for the movement, here's what I'm working on:
My former jobs, before I became self-employed were in education and science. This may not make much sense to many of you, but I was trained in Six Sigma, part of this was making processes more visual, it works better for those of us who are tech-minded and easier to understand for those who aren't. One of the things I did frequently was called "process mapping," essentially, you take a process and make a visual representation of it. It has decision diamonds, if-then statements, things like that.
So, what I'm going to work on, is creating a process map for the movement. To state where we are, where we can go, what we should be doing in different niches (such as getting people elected, educating others, projects being worked on, what we should be doing to prepare for the coming recession.) It will be up for suggestions and I suspect it's going to take at least a week for me to create, then will be subject to suggestions from others for their input and re-write.
I'm looking to you guys for a set of laws or principles that this should be derived from. I know this isn't the perfect solution for everyone, but I think a lot of people feel a bit wayward and lost, I know I do, and I'd like to try to use my skills to bring some direction and focus to the grassroots. I already have some notions, for one, to use the Constitution as an overarching guide, but it's some of the specifics that I'm interested in. This will be completely directed towards regaining the rights as spelled out for us in the Constitution and freedom for people in general.
Thanks for any input.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 11:55 AM
I was trained in Six Sigma
Never cross a revolutionary who knows how to create a plan. As they say, amateurs talk about strategy- generals talk about logistics.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:13 PM
Never cross a revolutionary who knows how to create a plan. As they say, amateurs talk about strategy- generals talk about logistics.
That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me all week. :)
And, by the way, I'll be counting on your input into the project. You certainly seem to have a good head on your shoulders.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:18 PM
however, I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees! Dying is DEAD. From your knees you still preserve the standing up option. :)
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:19 PM
Actually, to be precise, this isn't really a revolution. It's a RESTORATION of an already existing constitution!
That may be even more revolutionary, from where we are today. :)
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 12:20 PM
Well, amy, I think we should be concentrating on getting our minimal government types into federal office and leaving state choice up to the people. Likewise, we want to play up education on the federal government and the limitations the Founders tried to place on it with the Constitution. This limits the one federal government and actually creates competition--you can move to another state if you want. Is this the sort of input you're looking for at the basic level?
Be sure to give us input feedback for best results!
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:21 PM
Dying is DEAD. From your knees you still preserve the standing up option. :)
And you call yourself "Truth Warrior?" Yet you naysay those who are determined to promote the truth and are willing to fight for it? :)
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 12:22 PM
Dying is DEAD. From your knees you still preserve the standing up option. :)
Knees may well be a decent delaying tactic, but they are not a long term option!
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:25 PM
Well, amy, I think we should be concentrating on getting our minimal government types into federal office and leaving state choice up to the people. Likewise, we want to play up education on the federal government and the limitations the Founders tried to place on it with the Constitution. This limits the one federal government and actually creates competition--you can move to another state if you want. Is this the sort of input you're looking for at the basic level?
Be sure to give us input feedback for best results!
That's certainly a good part of it--the "voting with your feet" option. It will certainly have to be a living document, as I am hardly psychic and can't predict outcomes, thus the logistics of things will have to be re-evaluated frequently.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:28 PM
And you call yourself "Truth Warrior?" Yet you naysay those who are determined to promote the truth and are willing to fight for it? :)
And what truth would that be?
Thanks!
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:28 PM
Knees may well be a decent delaying tactic, but they are not a long term option!
AGREED! :)
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 12:30 PM
That's certainly a good part of it--the "voting with your feet" option. It will certainly have to be a living document, as I am hardly psychic and can't predict outcomes, thus the logistics of things will have to be re-evaluated frequently.
Well, if you like the way I handle words, call on me at any time to "fill in the blanks" with explanations! Sounds like a very useful project.
P.S. not that I've ever noticed you fail to express yourself eloquently, just that I'm willing to help.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:32 PM
And what truth would that be?
Thanks!
Quite simply that this cause is worth the hassle of real action, and not laying back and taking whatever is thrown our way out of fear.
Bryan
03-14-2008, 12:36 PM
OK, this is one of the best threads here ever. :) My fiat $0.02:
First, I hope that it is clear to everyone that this forum avoids as much central planning as possible - the mods and admins won't come up with ideas to try to push, it is up to the user community to seek direction, build support and take action. We hope to do our best to provide a way for individuals to self organize.
As stated, we do need to start with principles, which we're all basically in agreement with already as all being a part of this campaign so I will concur with this:
Freedom, peace and prosperity as principles, sure works for me.
As far as actions, I think micahnelson really nailed it here:
1-3% of people rule. This is the first tier.
14-12% of people are political. This is the second tier.
85% of people don't care. This is the third tier.
<cut great analysis>
Saying all that to say this. We need to unify a significant percentage of the second tier, and then start convincing the third.
Given this, all actions can be categorized as follows:
- Type 1: Have second tier people work to get those supporting "the principles" into tier one.
- Type 2: Have second tier (and our first tier) people work to get "rule" out of the hands of the first tier (less government).
- Type 3: Getting people in tier three into tier two.
All these actions can happen at the same time but it's important to keep each effort focused on what you want to achieve. This is critical, particular for Type 3 activity. Some detail:
Type 1 work has been the Ron Paul 2008 campaign and other congressional efforts.
Some excellent Type 2 work mentioned here includes:
How about the repeal of the two major implemented, by government, planks of the Communist Manifesto, namely central bank and income tax, as big enough focal points?
This is critical because it strikes a major root of the problem.
Agreed about the vulnerability of the GOP. I just think the GOP brand name will limit our ability to grab anti-war liberals. They will never sign on with republicans, along with many mainstream Americans. the GOP is tainted goods.
Do we want our movement associated with the GOP? just a question and it isn't rhetorical.
I consider work within the GOP very worthwhile Type 2 efforts that can lead to Type 1 results. I agree that there are limits with it so we don't put all the eggs in one basket.
Some Type 3 work:
One little thing i do to jar people is to ask if they accept federal reserve notes, or if they still take US Dollars.
There are a lot of things that can be used to raise cognitive dissidents which is a good tool. I've got lots more... :)
A phone banking company is one of those good ideas... a mailing list, phone list, email list.
A newsletter.
There are ways.
More good ways to reach out to the third tier. Working off the foundation of the Ron Paul Newspaper could be a great way to go, even if the name and focus of the paper was changed (but still matching the principles). I had been wondering what kind of impact one could have by delivering a new edition of one of these newspapers in every driveway within a precinct on a regular bases for an extended period of time-- say twice a month for 6 months to a year.
I wonder if maybe we should put together an all out effort to show the average joe how much war profiteering is going on and who the people are who are benefiting from this. It doesnt seem like it would be too hard to convince people of why the military complex has to be reigned in if we show how the troops are the ones who are losing in all of this.
If we were able to do this we might just be able to make the average joe begin to connect the dots to the fed, income tax etc. Just a thought.
This is good Type 3 work- a plus here is that we can leverage the work of others, such as the movie "Iraq for Sale"- that tells the war profiteering story well. The question becomes, how to get people to watch it?
Do we want to package this in a way the non political 85% of Americans can understand and accept, or do we want to try and educate 85% of Americans to the point that they understand it on the level some of us do?
We need to be realistic about how people think instead of just getting mad at the "sheep". Thats my take on it at least.
So this is Type 3 efforts, reaching out the masses and IMO, one needs to focus on simple steps that will help activate people to get them into tier 2 or vote for our tier 1 candidates. Any effort here needs to be tested in trial markets.
If we coalesce behind just one person, we fail when that person does...
If we coalesce behind principles, we can only grow stronger, and between us, our principles can be stamped out, and made stronger.
This is all very true. That said, if you look at history you can see that many great movements came from rallying behind one person. In my view, a good model is to organize and gain tier 2 strength without being behind one person but to then rally behind one person for Type 1 activities which can then better yield Type 2 results. :)
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:36 PM
Quite simply that this cause is worth the hassle of real action, and not laying back and taking whatever is thrown our way out of fear.
Here's a truth for you.
The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html
Enjoy!
Thanks!
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:41 PM
Well, if you like the way I handle words, call on me at any time to "fill in the blanks" with explanations! Sounds like a very useful project.
P.S. not that I've ever noticed you fail to express yourself eloquently, just that I'm willing to help.
Thanks! And, I don't express myself eloquently all the time. I'm too technical when it's something that I'm passionate about, ironically--I go into technical writing mode, so I can use all the help I can get.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:44 PM
Here's a truth for you.
The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html
Enjoy!
Thanks!
Thanks for the article, very well-written and persuasive.
amy31416
03-14-2008, 12:46 PM
OK, this is one of the best threads here ever. :) My fiat $0.02:
I agree completely. This thread has given me a lot of hope, motivation and direction. Thanks to Dave Wood for starting it and all the others who have contributed.
Truth Warrior
03-14-2008, 12:47 PM
Thanks for the article, very well-written and persuasive.
You're more than welcome! :)
acptulsa
03-14-2008, 01:03 PM
OK, this is one of the best threads here ever. :) My fiat $0.02:
Might even be worthwhile sticking a pin into it.
micahnelson
03-14-2008, 01:07 PM
...if you look at history you can see that many great movements came from rallying behind one person. In my view, a good model is to organize and gain tier 2 strength without being behind one person but to then rally behind one person for Type 1 activities which can then better yield Type 2 results. :)
I think when those people come along, we should definitely support them. We aren't going to get many pro liberty types on national tickets, but we can see them quite often on a local level. This goes back to the GOP maneuvering. In areas where the GOP matters, I think this is a good idea.
Coming from Rhode Island, I might as well run on a revived Nationalist Socialist ticket than go GOP. Its going to be a regional thing in that regard.
- Type 1: Have second tier people work to get those supporting "the principles" into tier one.
- Type 2: Have second tier (and our first tier) people work to get "rule" out of the hands of the first tier (less government).
- Type 3: Getting people in tier three into tier two.
Also, working to unite the second tier. We are all displeased with government, so there must be some level ground we can find.
Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. A good place to start. We should definitely start citing more people than Ron Paul- he cites scores of thinkers. There is an established lineage of classical liberal thinking that we can draw from. It gives us credibility and a wider base to draw from.
All men have their failings, only ideas can be pure. Kade alluded to this.
Someone's sig here is "I support Ron Paul because he supports me, via the constitution". I think that is the right way to look at it. It is probably putting the cart before the horse to start naming names, as this "plan" is in its infancy, but when we do start supporting politicians it should be those who respect our liberties and our property. That is the standard, and should always be the standard, above party, religion, hair color, or region.
and with all due respect, you have always appeared to be a control freak in a good kind of way.
It's not about being a control freak but thanks.
When you post offtopic, you bury the threads that are grassroots. Plus it sets a bad example for noobs, who tend to flood this forum with offtopic threads, exacerbating the problem.
Then, you get the disorganization of every kind of topic, which hinders discussion and reading because people are not finding the information they are looking for, but rather what thread starters think is relevant, on topic or not.
So to you, it might seem like order is some neurotic hangup, but responsible posting makes the forum a better place to be for everyone.
It's like how you have the freedom to dress the way you want. But I doubt you go into work dressed like a ballerina if you aren't one. :)
yongrel
03-14-2008, 01:43 PM
It's not about being a control freak but thanks.
When you post offtopic, you bury the threads that are grassroots. Plus it sets a bad example for noobs, who tend to flood this forum with offtopic threads, exacerbating the problem.
Then, you get the disorganization of every kind of topic, which hinders discussion and reading because people are not finding the information they are looking for, but rather what thread starters think is relevant, on topic or not.
So to you, it might seem like order is some neurotic hangup, but responsible posting makes the forum a better place to be for everyone.
It's like how you have the freedom to dress the way you want. But I doubt you go into work dressed like a ballerina.
QFT
I think when those people come along, we should definitely support them. We aren't going to get many pro liberty types on national tickets, but we can see them quite often on a local level. This goes back to the GOP maneuvering. In areas where the GOP matters, I think this is a good idea.
Coming from Rhode Island, I might as well run on a revived Nationalist Socialist ticket than go GOP. Its going to be a regional thing in that regard.
I really do believe that Rhode Island is one of those states where an open Libertarian could be elected. The style of "liberalism" here is closer to the Rightwing definition of it... My southern brand would do well here... From a local perspective, we only need to attack the issues most ignored, and people here are very displeased with the current administration, from governor to the state house.
I don't even pretend to include any Helen Glover has to say.
On that though, for instance, the Social Security Issue here...instead of making it about Illegal Immigrants, we can make it more about privacy. That Social Security Number is not an identification number, it never have should have been, nor should it ever be used as one... I think that sentiment resonates with all Northern Liberals.
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 07:02 AM
Quite simply that this cause is worth the hassle of real action, and not laying back and taking whatever is thrown our way out of fear.
So Tier Two are the activists who actually choose the candidates that run for Tier One, and Tier Three are the masses. How many of us were Tier Three last year and are Tier Two today?
Those who have been in the Republican Tier Two are of two camps. One group is, of course, the neocons who aren't happy to see us. The other are true conservatives who aren't in it for profit, but for principle, and they are very happy to see us. The G.O.P. at this point in history is not one big happy family. The trick is to come in as noobs and find our natural allies.
The other trick, of course, is to lead some more Tier Three types up to Tier Two, and to convince other Tier Three types to listen to us rather than to the same group whose cliches the people are accustomed to. It takes time to get them accustomed to your new wisdom, and part of it is to keep repeating them until they turn into comfortable cliches. That's hard to do when no one will point a microphone at you. The internet, like the presidency, is a "bully" pulpit.
Certainly as this economy cools, things will heat up sufficiently in Tier Three to bring the public to a boil. And, of course, the more steamed they get the more of them will break the surface into Tier Two, just as more heat causes more steam to escape the water in a pan.
For now, I suggest humor for the public and respect for the existing delegates--and careful attention to convention rules. For the future (not just yet), we need to be ready to stir up anger against the recklessness of the status quo.
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 07:11 AM
"I think the goal is one world government - we have not only the U.N. - we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subisidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric government highways coming in. I just hope an pray that we can wake up enough people." -- Quote from interview with Ron Paul, United States Congressman, July 2006
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 07:46 AM
"I think the goal is one world government - we have not only the U.N. - we have the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, then we have all the subisidiaries like NAFTA and hemispheric government highways coming in. I just hope an pray that we can wake up enough people." -- Quote from interview with Ron Paul, United States Congressman, July 2006
This is no small part of why I want to fight at the convention whether we have a chance to win or not. We need attention.
joemiller
03-17-2008, 07:48 AM
Agreed. I'd rather be working toward a goal of some sort. And have been by supporting other Ron Paul Republicans by donations. Brent Sanders and Murray Sabrin have both received financial support from me, and Jim Forsythe is next.
But what sort of project can we work on? Something different, I'm not made out of money and I'm also not the type to run for office.
I joined up here in November, so I remember the excitement around the 11/5 and the 12/16 money bombs. It seems to me though, that right after 12/16, chaos ran rampant and we couldn't get our act together to do something concrete. I kept yapping about a precinct leader "bomb" a "register republican" bomb, and never got anywhere. The reason for the chaos, if I may surmise was probably, strangely enough, blowback. People were pissed off at us for taking over Digg and YouTube and our internet obnoxiousness, plus there were probably paid trolls who came here to screw us up.
Anyways, my point is that we need to be more mature, stealthy and united and accept that we all have differences and engage each other in healthy, but respectful debate (I'm guilty at times of not being very respectful myself.)
So, folks, where do we go from here?
Well, except for the "stealthy"part, I would agree with you...in fact, what we need to do is engage the system head on, with all the bells and whistles blowing.
To do this effectively, all you have to do is insure your name is on the ballot as a local precinct committee man or women for your county GOP. It would also help to insure that all of the precincts in your county have at least one Ron Paul nominee on the ballot.
joe
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 08:04 AM
This is no small part of why I want to fight at the convention whether we have a chance to win or not. We need attention.
Best of luck to you. Given the scope of the challenges we face, I think that we need to be far beyond mere party politics. How and what exactly, I'm not too sure. :(
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 08:16 AM
Best of luck to you. Given the scope of the challenges we face, I think that we need to be far beyond mere party politics. How and what exactly, I'm not too sure. :(
Yes. Far, far too many of the "Tier Two" party hacks over the last many years are more interested in the party than in the issues. It's like the "Christian" churches that are more interested in the personality Jesus than what the Teacher taught.
Parties should be a means to good ends, not ends unto themselves.
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 08:26 AM
Generating support for the congressional candidates should be a primary concern for supporters of Ron Paul. If some concerted action is NOT taken to spread the word to the Meet-Up groups about these candidates and their need for funds, then our chances of returning this country to freedom is nil. Brent Sanders' last money bomb should have brought in $300k at least, but he barely received $10k. Now, if we want to succeed at restoring liberty, we have to do the dirty work of contacting Meet-Up groups, etc., to inform them about these candidates. Discussing this matter solely on RPF will NOT get the job done by any means.
'a' priority, but not 'THE TOP" priority!
Several of us are meeting tomorrow night to discuss
several underground projects... many of which will be
used to support these candidates. Josh, you're invited
(check your PMs).
Hunter
p.s. I've avoided this thread out of a little resent ment
since I've been posting SEVERAL good projects but get
minimal co-operation. :(
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 08:34 AM
Yes. Far, far too many of the "Tier Two" party hacks over the last many years are more interested in the party than in the issues. It's like the "Christian" churches that are more interested in the personality Jesus than what the Teacher taught.
Parties should be a means to good ends, not ends unto themselves.
The rank and file Republicrats ( Tweedledum ) and Demopublicans ( Tweedledummer ) don't seem to really have a clue, nor want one. :( That applies to the Jesus cult "Christians" ( so-called ) also.<IMHO> A whole lot of the same folks obviously. :)
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 08:36 AM
Maybe we should have a constitutional convention and discuss this in real time. Is there any online meeting software that could facilitate this properly?
We would need to make up an agenda, and get cooperation from those who hold personal interests in this, namely, website operators. The purpose would be to develop what our "platform" should be. Before we can endorse candidates we need to have something concrete to which we can compare them.
After we have a platform, then we can discuss how to implement it at a later time. Obviously all people are free to act as they want, but for those of us who would like a unified approach, we need to have a unified plan.
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 08:39 AM
Those who feel the party is more important than the platform seem like the tail wagging the dog to me. When is it beyond the pale? It's just like, is a state university an institution of higher learning or an excuse for a football team?
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 08:43 AM
The rank and file Republicrats ( Tweedledum ) and Demopublicans ( Tweedledummer ) don't seem to really have a clue, nor want one. :( That applies to the Jesus cult "Christians" ( so-called ) also.<IMHO> A whole lot of the same folks obviously. :)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. "
Our role here is noble. We are not organizing to enslave, but to liberate. We are not forging a new world in our own image, but in a spirit of freedom. These people don't even know what has been taken from them, but they aren't happy. We need to show them that the problem isn't the left and the right, but US v. the System.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 08:53 AM
"The government that governs least, governs best."
Maybe we could get a collection of quotes from respectable political sources as our basis for these principles. It would go a long way to our credibility.
Good idea!
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 08:58 AM
Ha! I have four Ron Paul signs that have the IRS' name on it. ;) We definitely need to spread the message that the IRS and the Fed need to work for us and not the other way around. We need to fire the IRS, and in order to do that, we need to band together.
I have already taken some steps.
@ www.StandAndUnite.com !? :p
(let me know what you have it together)
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 08:59 AM
Those who feel the party is more important than the platform seem like the tail wagging the dog to me. When is it beyond the pale? It's just like, is a state university an institution of higher learning or an excuse for a football team?
And the top man at OU is a former U.S. senator and is a member of Skull and Bones. :D
Ya gotta love it! You can't make this stuff up. Go OU! YAY!
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 09:05 AM
I agree and I think what we're looking for is some semblance of leadership, or direction if you will. Not necessarily a hierarchy of sorts, but perhaps our own "think tank" needs to come out of grassroots. People who are trustworthy, knowledgeable and innovative, maybe even a little part cheerleader.
If we rally around particular causes or events and become united, yet still retain our ability to openly question and debate things (we need to get a bit better about being civil in debate, we have such a broad spectrum of people.)
I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of "projects" rather than only money bombs, something to educate the public on the Constitution or a specific part of it to help sway voters to vote for people like Sabrin, Sanders, Forsythe, et al. Don't get me wrong, the fund raising is important, but it's also very important to begin the arduous task of increasing awareness among the masses. We've been bamboozled by our government and led like cows to slaughter with these wars.
It's too important of a cause to allow division and chaos.
Want to write about it??? Maybe create petitions around it??? Unite people around it???
www.StandAndUnite.com (There is so much more to come, but check it!)
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 09:05 AM
And the top man at OU is a former U.S. senator and is a member of Skull and Bones. :D
Ya gotta love it! You can't make this stuff up. Go OU! YAY!
Do you know what Sooners are? During the land runs (where we robbed the natives of their treaty-guaranteed territory) the people who followed the rules and rushed in at the sound of the starting signal were Boomers and those who snuck in overnight and hid in the bushes and trees were called Sooners.
So, The Sooners is basically a synonym for The Cheaters. Does that explain everything you need to know?
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 09:12 AM
Do you know what Sooners are? During the land runs (where we robbed the natives of their treaty-guaranteed territory) the people who followed the rules and rushed in at the sound of the starting signal were Boomers and those who snuck in overnight and hid in the bushes and trees were called Sooners.
So, The Sooners is basically a synonym for The Cheaters. Does that explain everything you need to know?
Yep, I know that. I also know why the best football players would rather go to OU than OSU.
It's easier to spell. :D
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 09:38 AM
Maybe we should have a constitutional convention and discuss this in real time. Is there any online meeting software that could facilitate this properly?
We would need to make up an agenda, and get cooperation from those who hold personal interests in this, namely, website operators. The purpose would be to develop what our "platform" should be. Before we can endorse candidates we need to have something concrete to which we can compare them.
After we have a platform, then we can discuss how to implement it at a later time. Obviously all people are free to act as they want, but for those of us who would like a unified approach, we need to have a unified plan.
ummm... Dr. Pauls platform?
I never thought I'd say this about a politician in my life but
his beliefs are 99.99% of mine (we share a common mentor)
are
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 09:45 AM
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. "
Our role here is noble. We are not organizing to enslave, but to liberate. We are not forging a new world in our own image, but in a spirit of freedom. These people don't even know what has been taken from them, but they aren't happy. We need to show them that the problem isn't the left and the right, but US v. the System.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Well said.<IMHO>
I'm a long time fan of the D of I.
Thanks!
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 09:52 AM
ummm... Dr. Pauls platform?
I never thought I'd say this about a politician in my life but
his beliefs are 99.99% of mine (we share a common mentor)
are
I agree with his platform as well, but for whatever reason- it didn't click with people.
I'm not saying we abandon the principles of what he said, but if we copy and paste from his website to whatever it is we do... we can't expect any other outcome. I believe the reason had to do with Ron Paul the statesman not being believable enough as Ron Paul the president.
Again, please don't think I want to burn the foundation and start over. We just need to make the ideas strong enough to have meaning and easy enough to understand that people will accept them. That means honing the ideas away from a general:
"The system is broken"
to
"This is what we believe. This is what we want. This is how we get there. This is how you can help"
I agree with his platform as well, but for whatever reason- it didn't click with people.
I'm not saying we abandon the principles of what he said, but if we copy and paste from his website to whatever it is we do... we can't expect any other outcome. I believe the reason had to do with Ron Paul the statesman not being believable enough as Ron Paul the president.
Again, please don't think I want to burn the foundation and start over. We just need to make the ideas strong enough to have meaning and easy enough to understand that people will accept them. That means honing the ideas away from a general:
"The system is broken"
to
"This is what we believe. This is what we want. This is how we get there. This is how you can help"
To be honest, this entire approach would have to come from a philosophical background.
How do we define freedom.
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 11:34 AM
To be honest, this entire approach would have to come from a philosophical background.
How do we define freedom.
Sounds good. Lets define freedom, peace and prosperity.
Starting with freedom.
For there to be a state of freedom, individual rights must be recognized and respected. Any limitation of these rights must be self-imposed, limited in scope, and towards a specific goal. None of these limitations can ever violate the rights of one, over the other. All limitations must come from the people.
There, tear it apart.
Sounds good. Lets define freedom, peace and prosperity.
Starting with freedom.
For there to be a state of freedom, individual rights must be recognized and respected. Any limitation of these rights must be self-imposed, limited in scope, and towards a specific goal. None of these limitations can ever violate the rights of one, over the other. All limitations must come from the people.
There, tear it apart.
Well, here is my most cherished personal freedom, since perhaps we can start off that way... I'll use the words of Jefferson.
"that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor,"
"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
"...that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 12:09 PM
"that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor,"
"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
"...that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."
I think this would fall under the "No limitation of rights can favor one individual over another"
This would include any fleecing of his pocket to further another's ideology or certainly coercion into any philosophical or religious sentiment for any reason other than the dictates of one's own conscience.
I think this would fall under the "No limitation of rights can favor one individual over another"
This would include any fleecing of his pocket to further another's ideology or certainly coercion into any philosophical or religious sentiment for any reason other than the dictates of one's own conscience.
Entirely too vague. I don't see a court in the world not siding with some insane attempt to favor religious organizations on the basis that more people are represented.
This also doesn't prevent any attempt to start adding religious symbols and wording all over the place.
I turn your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment
When someone makes a very compelling case for inclusion of religious ideology in any potential binding document, I simply can't support it. Otherwise, why try, just hand out the Gideon.
A Ron Paul Rebel
03-17-2008, 12:27 PM
Sounds good. Lets define freedom, peace and prosperity.
Starting with freedom.
For there to be a state of freedom, individual rights must be recognized and respected. Any limitation of these rights must be self-imposed, limited in scope, and towards a specific goal. None of these limitations can ever violate the rights of one, over the other. All limitations must come from the people.
There, tear it apart.
Why do [freedoms need to be 'limited in scope'] and be
[towards a specific goal]?
The last time [we] fixed a broken government, the constitiution was written!:eek:
(So, on second though, model the constitution.)
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 12:37 PM
Why do [freedoms need to be 'limited in scope'] and be
[towards a specific goal]?
The last time [we] fixed a broken government, the constitiution was written!:eek:
(So, on second though, model the constitution.)
Rights aren't limited in scope and towards a specific goal, the restriction of rights would be.
In other words, laws. When we willingly consent to form a government the laws we make must be specific, not broad.
micahnelson
03-17-2008, 12:39 PM
Entirely too vague. I don't see a court in the world not siding with some insane attempt to favor religious organizations on the basis that more people are represented.
This also doesn't prevent any attempt to start adding religious symbols and wording all over the place.
I turn your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_amendment
When someone makes a very compelling case for inclusion of religious ideology in any potential binding document, I simply can't support it. Otherwise, why try, just hand out the Gideon.
First of all, this isn't a new constitution. I'm just trying to define some terms. Religious symbols and wording are outside of the limited scope of a free government which does not include the promotion of any ideology over another.
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 12:52 PM
What percentage of the existing law ( so-called ) base could simply be replaced with,
"Do as you please, but harm no other in their person or property."?
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 12:57 PM
Congress shall make no law restricting the activities of an individual, group or organization unless it can demonstrate that this activity represents a clear threat to the person or property of another.
Congress shall make no law restricting the activities of a state unless such activities shall restrict free trade between the states, impede the common defense or pose a direct threat to the person, property or liberty of any American citizen not convicted of a crime under the dictates of the guideline above.
Congress shall make no law restricting the activities of an individual, group or organization unless it can demonstrate that this activity represents a clear threat to the person or property of another.
Congress shall make no law restricting the activities of a state unless such activities shall restrict free trade between the states, impede the common defense or pose a direct threat to the person, property or liberty of any American citizen not convicted of a crime under the dictates of the guideline above.
Group or organization?
Isn't that the problem with America right now?
Give me one example where allowing a group or organization activity is hurt by something not given to an individual....
I don't believe in the rights of organizations or groups of people.
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 01:29 PM
Kade, do you approve of our inability to arrange to peaceably assemble in Washington because we're waiting while the National Park Service delays our permit for the March?
Kade, do you approve of our inability to arrange to peaceably assemble in Washington because we're waiting while the National Park Service delays our permit for the March?
You can peaceably assemble. And a million of your friends can peaceably assemble together. I don't see what that has to do with an organization or group receiving a right.
If you are assembling and gathering a group, it is still an individual right.
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 01:47 PM
If you are assembling and gathering a group, it is still an individual right.
Hmmm... I don't know if that would stand up in court. But, in the end, if we are to have free enterprise, corporations must have rights too. Sorry, but that's pretty much a prerequisite.
Hmmm... I don't know if that would stand up in court. But, in the end, if we are to have free enterprise, corporations must have rights too. Sorry, but that's pretty much a prerequisite.
So you are an advocate for corporate personhood?
Hmmm... I don't know if that would stand up in court. But, in the end, if we are to have free enterprise, corporations must have rights too. Sorry, but that's pretty much a prerequisite.
and for the record, you've been trumped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The argument for corporate personhood should be aggressively defeated by those that care most about liberty. This goes to the core of the National Bank, the core of individual rights, and to the very core of Fourteen Amendment abuse that is often decried here on these boards.
Also, it becomes favorable of corporate interests, lobbyists, political parties, and other entities that have more combined power than individuals.
Unacceptable.
acptulsa
03-17-2008, 02:04 PM
The argument for corporate personhood should be aggressively defeated by those that care most about liberty. This goes to the core of the National Bank, the core of individual rights, and to the very core of Fourteen Amendment abuse that is often decried here on these boards.
Also, it becomes favorable of corporate interests, lobbyists, political parties, and other entities that have more combined power than individuals.
Unacceptable.
I concede the point. They need rights, but not the same rights as an individual. Fair enough.
I concede the point. They need rights, but not the same rights as an individual. Fair enough.
My view, for which I certainly share with other law professionals and scholars, is that freedom of assembly is a very sacred right indeed, and so is enterprise. Neither of which negates your own responsibility towards other people.
The freedom of assembly is the freedom to join any political party (tell that to Mcarthy), any special interest, any union, and any protest without government restriction.
In giving a group personhood status, it often exonerates the constituents of that group from responsibility.
There are many violations of this everyday, including the requirement that a person must have a license or permit to protest, and must notify in a certain amount of days...
Nothing infuriates me more than the federal governments upholding of these kind of statutes, that allow for people, often civil authorities who might even be the target of such a protest, to diminish the effect of the voice of the people.
I ran into this my first year here in Rhode Island... many people were protesting the police in Newport, and many were arrested because they did not properly notify the authorities of the protest.
In my mind, that is tyranny, and nothing short of it.
Truth Warrior
03-17-2008, 03:11 PM
Good job there Kade on your last several posts.<IMHO>
Kudos, you nailed it!
DeadtoSin
03-17-2008, 03:30 PM
I'm not trying to be rude guys, but I'll tell you why I don't go to these forums anymore. That isn't to say I'm not spreading the freedom message. I just can't enjoy these forums anymore.
You guys constantly attack each other. For such a young movement this place has the worst backbiting and rivalries I've ever seen on any message board.
You get the 9/11 truthers arguing with the non-truthers, you get the people bickering constantly over which pet project should be funded (and if you disagree with them then you are a neo-con hack who is trying to sabotage the movement), and you get people attacking anyone they perceive as having snubbed Ron Paul.
I remember when Huckabee won Iowa, all night the board was filled with people talking about how ignorant Christians are.
I love you guys, and if the boards change a bit I'll attend them more. If you guys want to be a viable political force, love each other and respect each others decisions.
If someone starts to troll or be rude to another member, the whole board should let that guy know that he isn't welcome on these boards with that behavior.
amy31416
03-17-2008, 03:41 PM
I'm not trying to be rude guys, but I'll tell you why I don't go to these forums anymore. That isn't to say I'm not spreading the freedom message. I just can't enjoy these forums anymore.
You guys constantly attack each other. For such a young movement this place has the worst backbiting and rivalries I've ever seen on any message board.
You get the 9/11 truthers arguing with the non-truthers, you get the people bickering constantly over which pet project should be funded (and if you disagree with them then you are a neo-con hack who is trying to sabotage the movement), and you get people attacking anyone they perceive as having snubbed Ron Paul.
I remember when Huckabee won Iowa, all night the board was filled with people talking about how ignorant Christians are.
I love you guys, and if the boards change a bit I'll attend them more. If you guys want to be a viable political force, love each other and respect each others decisions.
If someone starts to troll or be rude to another member, the whole board should let that guy know that he isn't welcome on these boards with that behavior.
I think you're right far too often, but this thread in particular has been exceedingly civil and thoughtful for a message board.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.